The Results Are In: Organic Beats "Conventional" Ag!

Some thoughts about a mule (4.00 / 1)

In the last hundred years, all the intelligent minds have been working on more n'better tractors and other gas-driven technology.

Meanwhile, the mule has been put out to pasture.

Now: In the very near future, gas will likely be so expensive that the mule will once again be cost efficient. Besides, you can compost mule effluent and use it to enrich your soil.

I bet if intelligent minds, using modern technology, were put to work on the problem of "how to make our simple mule more efficient," we could have all sorts of mule-labor saving devices, which would enable a farmer with a team to get as much out of her/his land as the farmer with the tractor.  

---

by: la motocycliste @ Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 20:09:07 PM UTC

You won't ever get as much work out of a mule as you will a tractor (4.00 / 1)

not that mules are bad mind you. I've worked with mules, I got my little twisted mule, and I have a lot of fondness for mules. Mules are superior in many ways to powered equipment in the right situation. But there's a reason why people went to using machinery instead of draft animals for farming (and transportation in general for that matter).

You have to buy gas or diesel for the tractor sure. But when the tractor's not running it ain't eating. Try that out on a mule and see how far you get.

When you're done working, you put the tractor in the barn or where ever else you park it and you're done with it for the day. When you're done with the mule, you need to groom him, feed him, check the hooves, check for gauls, etc. Then you have to take all of the harness and clean it. If you don't, you'll gaul your mule and then you'll be out of luck until the mule heals up.

In the spring, you'll have to do some maintenance to your tractor. In the spring it's going to take a couple of weeks for your mule to get back into the swing of things behavior wise, and it's going to take a month probably before he's muscled up like he was last fall. And, you'll probably have to have a different collar for first of the year work than you were using last fall. That mule's going to loose muscle mass in his neck and shoulders over winter and the collar you were using last fall won't fit properly. If you use a collar that doesn't fit, you'll gaul your mule and you'll be out of commission until he heals up.

Plus, you can simply work more ground in a day with a tractor (or a combine, etc.) than you can a mule.

Working with draft animals is well suited to some farming models, but not to all, and I would think not at all to a very large/extensive farm.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 20:52:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

here's one idea (4.00 / 1)

 you hitch the mule to a high tech generator which charges a high tech storage battery. When the battery (on wheels) is charged, you plug the battery into your combine and work your field while the mule is either charging up a second battery or eating hay.  

---

by: la motocycliste @ Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 21:53:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The advantage of the mule over solar panels (4.00 / 1)

Is that the mule can pull a large heavy charged battery (on wheels) out to where the combine is and bring the spent battery back for charging, either by mule power, solar power or windmill power. This model assumes that gas now costs $15 a gallon.  

---

by: la motocycliste @ Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 22:33:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're assuming that the solar system and high tech batteries (4.00 / 1)

don't cost more than the farm in the first place.

;-)

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 23:36:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are absolutely right (4.00 / 1)

All this stuff HAS to be cost effective

---

by: la motocycliste @ Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 23:55:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

mechanization (0.00 / 0)

Mechanization that occurred in the U.S. in the mid-to-late 1930s made many farmers redundant, besides replacing draft animals. A Grapes of Wrath migrant talks about being "tractored out". Photos from Southern archives show a man and a team pulling two-row equipment, followed by a man and a tractor pulling 4-row and 6-row equipment, and then 8-row equipment not long after.

---

by: count @ Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 23:24:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yup (4.00 / 2)

and that's why so many people can live in cities doing work that's way easier than farming.

;-)

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 23:35:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Paul Hanley (0.00 / 0)

Searched StarPhoenix for "Paul Hanley" - he seems to be a Star Phoenix environmental columnist with a broad portfolio. He must live in or near Saskatoon. Mildly interesting that the article is from a Canadian paper.

With results like these, why does conventional wisdom favour chemical farming? Vested interests. Organic farming keeps more money on the farm and in rural communities and out of the pockets of chemical companies. As the major funders of research centres and universities, and major advertisers in the farm media, they effectively buy a pro-chemical bias.

---

by: count @ Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 23:46:38 PM UTC

The Report (0.00 / 0)

The actual report is worth reading. It's not an exhaustive and exhausting, mind-numbing presentation of 30 years worth of numbers. It is a short summary. Even though it almost comes off as not much more than a glossy extension of the press release, it contains some startling numbers and graphs. For example, where Jill quoted the summary statement that

Organic farming uses 45% less energy and is more efficient.

a chart on page 15 shows what a tremendous contribution to energy inputs in conventional systems is made just by the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. It's huge.

Also, whereas the press release just says

Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional.

the report says

From FST, we have found that:

The organic systems were nearly three times more profitable than the conventional systems. The average net return for the organic systems was $558/acre/year versus just $190/acre/year for the conventional systems.
...

The most profitable grain crop was the organically grown wheat netting $835/acre/year.

No-till conventional corn was the least profitable crop netting just $27/acre/year.

That's dramatic. Can you imagine doing all that work for $27/year/acre? Of course, that's $27,000 per year for 1,000 acres, which is not negligible, but it doesn't seem a fair return. Can a farmer with 1,000 acres feed, clothe, and shelter his family with that, not to mention health care?

Whereas the USDA survey does not permit sensible comparisons between conventional techniques and organic techniques, the FST effort is much more helpful and reliable. Direct comparisons between the techniques themselves can be made because the trials were conducted in the same location, therefore with the same climate and weather. Also, the same crop varieties (seeds) probably were tested, except for comparisons of GMO vs. non-GMO, although I would guess that varieties varied over the three decades. (Seeds in the conventional trials might have been pesticide-coated, although this report doesn't mention that. I wonder if Rodale tested coated vs. non-coated seeds in the conventional trials.)

The interesting question arises, how will USDA and Big Ag spin this? Maybe Rodale doesn't know how to do conventional farming? Maybe Rodale didn't use enough chemicals in the conventional trials? I'm sure they'll try to bury the report somehow.

Now we need similar reports for livestock and dairy.

Damn. Reading this over during Preview, I still have difficulty adjusting to $27/acre/year. That seems nuts. I guess that covers variable inputs, but does that pay the banker?

---

by: count @ Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 07:46:38 AM UTC

To your question about the $27,000 feef and clothe and shelter his family (4.00 / 1)

on that? Excluding healthcare (which for a person like me would cost around $12,000 a year) if that figure was pure profit (the taxes on the part of the property, utilities and other external inputs, equipment maintenance, etc. were already paid from the gross receipts of sales from the crops grown on that 1,000 acres), then yes, $27,000 would keep a family very well if they did it right. You'd have to set aside 1-5 acres to feed yourselves. But on that kind of money a family of 4 could live like kings. Much better than someone living in a city where they had to buy everything.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 14:56:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

putrid return (0.00 / 0)

I infer that your answer in other words is that the family could not be supported without supplementary resources, 1-5 acres of food production in your example.

That's funny.

If the family farmed another five acres and "if they did it right", meaning if they farmed that land like you farm yours, why bother with 1,000 acres of corn?

It must seem like I have a bee in my undies about gullible American taxpayers subsidizing the most inefficient means of production. Well, maybe government payments will cover the health insurance.

---

by: count @ Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 18:40:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

paying the banker... (0.00 / 0)

and the tax man. As Joanne inadvertently pointed out, net income is pre-tax.

---

by: count @ Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 18:43:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

net income (0.00 / 0)

I assumed that "net income" is net operating income.

---

by: count @ Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 18:47:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The $27,000 (4.00 / 1)

net income would be pre personal income tax but post gross receipts after all operating expenses for the business. Remember, if the business is being run as a sole proprietorship then the personal income would be the result of the profit as calculated in the IRS form Profit or Loss From Farming. I forget what schedule number that is, but it's like Schedule C Profit or Loss From a Business, only it's specifically for farming. That's the one I fill out every year.

A family of 4 should be able to provide all the meat, produce, and if they are so inclined, alchohol (beer, wine, mead, etc.) they should need, on 1-5 acres depending on what kind of meat you want to produce for the family.

You have to do this by living a 'homesteading' life style, but it can be done.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 20:07:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

net income (0.00 / 0)

I don't know, Joanne. The report isn't clear. On page 14, a chart shows returns = income - expenses, without defining expenses. On page 13, a statement references "operating profit" with regard to information from the Organic Trade Association, but the phrase is not defined. Although IRS Schedule F does include not only taxes but also mortgage interest payments as farm expenses, I have an amorphous feeling that the FTS report isn't talking about IRS net farm profit.

I'm not certain, though. You might be right. This is a flaw in the report.

---

by: count @ Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 21:17:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

mortgage payments (0.00 / 0)

Mortgage interest is a farm expense on Sched. F but principal repayment is not. However "net income" or "operating profit" is defined, I guess principal repayment comes out of that?

---

by: count @ Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 21:30:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Could be (4.00 / 1)

I've never used that deduction on Schedule F as I've never bought property, and when I do eventually buy some property to farm, hopefully this place I'm on now, I'll be paying cash, so I probably won't ever (I hope) buy property on a contract.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:55:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you (4.00 / 1)

the problem with reports like this is that they don't define what they call profit. What I call profit is all of the operating expenses for the business and any amortized or depreciated property/equipment if your doing accrual accounting (I operate on a cash basis) deducted from the  gross receipts from the business. That's profit as far as I'm concerned. And that profit is what goes to pay your wages when you're in business for yourself. That's what you report as your income on form 1040 (or as part of your income if you're working a second job as well).

Now, if you're breaking out the operating expenses, etc. vs gross receipts from different production units of the business, say from growing grain, then you'd figure what it cost to grow that grain and deduct that from the gross receipts of the sale of that grain. Perhaps that's what they're talking about in the report when they mention specific crops. In that case, the grain operation may be profitable, even though the rest of the farm was loosing money or breaking even. I operated like that for a while. The only production unit on my farm that was making a profit was the chickens. Now all of the other production units are making a small profit except the chickens. Go figure... Oh, well, I'm phasing the layers out anyway.

I'm going to keep a few around for my own personal use, but I'm shifting all of my poultry and fowl to meat produciton. That way I don't have to feed animals that aren't paying their way all of the time.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:06:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]